Countless media pundits question the efficacy of the pro-life movement. … Some maintain that overturning Roe v. Wade would not result in fewer abortions. The spin they give is that if abortion policy returned to the states, women seeking abortions would simply travel to blue states where abortion would likely remain legal.
However, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that women seeking abortions are sensitive to the travel costs and that state bans on abortion would be effective in reducing abortions.
In other words, “pro-lifers” are excited by evidence that state restrictions on abortion – or outright bans if Roe v. Wade were overturned – force poor women to give birth. Rich women (National Review readers?) are fine – they can just buy a ticket to California or New York or Europe or someplace and make a long weekend of it. No biggie.
But poor women couldn’t afford to travel to places where abortion was legal, so they’d have no choice but to have a child. No money = no choice. Mandatory motherhood.
And don’t forget that all the while, “pro-life” lawmakers are slashing funding for family planning, making it even harder for poor women to avoid pregnancy in the first place.
Luckily, aspirin between the knees is super cheap, according to conservatives.
Here’s my question for “pro-lifers”: If women can’t afford an abortion, how on Earth will they afford to adequately care for a child? Have you looked into the cost of diapers these days? Day care? Food? Education?
The right wing can crow all day about how much they respect life, but forcing women to give birth to children they don’t want and can’t afford while voting to slash the social safety net doesn’t sound “pro-life” to me. Pro-birth, maybe. There’s a BIG difference.